[RRoss]

I was surfing the net yesterday and ran across a clip from a certain tv show that has been notoriously liberal...especially one of the hostesses (name of the show is irrelevant). The subject at hand was the Colorado shooting and as I listened to the story they told I became disgusted. I was disgusted with the way the media twisted facts to feed into their agenda. Things like: "He was shooting an automatic assault rifle that could shoot 100 rounds in 3 seconds" and "He had 100 round clips" Lets be honest here....the Colorado shooter was using an AR-15. To a non-gun person, these are very intimidating looking and scary because of the connection they have to the Military (automatic version) M16.
During the segment, the question was asked: "Why would ANYONE need an assault rifle?"

What would your reply be to someone if they asked you to justify the need for a rifle like an AR-15 as a civilian. I'm asking for real tangible reasons...not "cuz it's fun to shoot" (we all understand that; the liberals could care less).
Give me the justification you would/have use(d) to justify it to your liberal friends, family, or just someone you work with.

**quick disclaimer here...I do not own an AR as of yet. I do plan on building my own in the next couple years**

 

[glocknloaded]

Simply because a handgun sometimes is not enough. Who knows what type of self defense scenario we may end up in and simply making sure you have the means to take care of and protect your family from multiple threats at the same time is within the are rights set forth by are 2nd amendment.

I am horrible at literature so I am sure someone will say what I mean much better than me

 

[ANIMAL!!!]

Liberals don't hunt...

 

[Webphisher]

He also didn't have an Assualt Rifle. Its a Modern Sportsman's Rifle. Its not full auto, again my big thing with that is I can take a damn hunting rifle that no one cares about and wreck more damn havoc. GAH sorry had to get it out of my system.

That being said, handguns dont hunt well, my Sig556 will hunt pig just fine and its got a more modern look to it that I like. Im not a huge wood fan most of the time on my guns. Yes it looks like damn full auto modern AK, well AR but its more like a chambered down Ak than an AR, but it still shoots one bullet per trigger pull.

 

[SeventiesWreckers]

I was in L.A. for the Watts riots. And by some twist of fate I was also there for the Rodney King riots.

I'd just like something to tide me over till the National Guard shows up.

It usually takes them about a week.

 

[glocknloaded]

I was in L.A. for the Watts riots. And by some twist of fate I was also there for the Rodney King riots.

I'd just like something to tide me over till the National Guard shows up.

It usually takes them about a week.

Yep ^^^ this is what I wanted to express

 

[SeventiesWreckers]

Yep ^^^ this is what I wanted to express

Take it, consider it yours, it really belongs to all of us anyway, since it's just the right to defend ourselves.

With some reasonable expectation of success, that is.

 

[RRoss]

Ok, let me take this a step further. Do you think that full auto should fall under the 2nd A as well? "The right to bear arms" no matter what kind?
This is not meant as anything but a conversation piece. It's not meant an attack in any way.

 

[BLCKWLF]

Ok, let me take this a step further. Do you think that full auto should fall under the 2nd A as well? "The right to bear arms" no matter what kind?
This is not meant as anything but a conversation piece. It's not meant an attack in any way.

Yes, back when the constitution and bill of rights were written, both the US military and the average farmer had the most advanced weaponry in the world. Why should that change, after all the second amendment is there for our personal protection, our mutual protection, our nations protection, and our protection from our own government.

 

[gunsmithie23]

Justify? Really? Why should we justify our right to own a firearm? Sorry everyone i did not mean to get snappy. But I do have an AR that I built. It was my first real gunsmithing project and I am very proud of it. I am building another in either .458 socom or.50 Beowulf to shoot hogs with. As a firearms collector as well why should I give up an essential part of my collection ( and a part of myself) because some psycho flipped his lid. It was a horrible tragedy and I pray for those families every night. But just because he used an AR they want perfectly sane law abiding people to give up their firearms? .....why....? How about I take away your right to eat tofu because it gave me food poisoning. Sorry once again for being snappy but I am very passionate about my firearms ownership.

 

[runman]

He also didn't have an Assualt Rifle. Its a Modern Sportsman's Rifle. Its not full auto, again my big thing with that is I can take a damn hunting rifle that no one cares about and wreck more damn havoc. GAH sorry had to get it out of my system.

That being said, handguns dont hunt well, my Sig556 will hunt pig just fine and its got a more modern look to it that I like. Im not a huge wood fan most of the time on my guns. Yes it looks like damn full auto modern AK, well AR but its more like a chambered down Ak than an AR, but it still shoots one bullet per trigger pull.

This is something that drives me nuts too. They always call it an assault rifle just because of how it looks. Would they push to ban hunting rifles if it was a wooden stock that looked like it had been around forever? Never mind, they would push to ban the guns and the trees they were made of.

 

[Webphisher]

When we start getting into full auto, I'd personally be ok with having to pass a test, similar to a drivers test, that shows I can operate a full auto safely. I don't believe that just because you can safely shoot a semi auto you can safely shoot a full auto. Should we still be able to have them? I think yes, but I also think people should pass a test and get a license to show they arent too stupid to breed too lol.

 

[gunsmithie23]

When we start getting into full auto, I'd personally be ok with having to pass a test, similar to a drivers test, that shows I can operate a full auto safely. I don't believe that just because you can safely shoot a semi auto you can safely shoot a full auto. Should we still be able to have them? I think yes, but I also think people should pass a test and get a license to show they arent too stupid to breed too lol.

Totally agreed.

 

[GlockIt]

Justification? Just ask the coyote who got a hole blown in his side at 35yds because it ate my neighbors little 5lb lap dog which was ripped to shreds by that same coyote. Would they prefer I get a 200lb male caucasian shepherd and have him kill every coyote, fox, and raccon that even comes near my poultry?

 

[BLCKWLF]

When we start getting into full auto, I'd personally be ok with having to pass a test, similar to a drivers test, that shows I can operate a full auto safely. I don't believe that just because you can safely shoot a semi auto you can safely shoot a full auto. Should we still be able to have them? I think yes, but I also think people should pass a test and get a license to show they arent too stupid to breed too lol.

Disagreed, the second amendment does not say we have the right to pay the government for a license, it says we have the right to bear arms. However, I do believe that everyone who intends to exercise that right, should get training. Do we all have the right to bear arms, yes, should we all, no.

 

[Webphisher]

It does say the right to bear arms, it doesnt say the right to bear any and all arms that exist. Needing a license to own and operate a full auto does not infringe on our right to bear arms. And I'm talking not some $200 tax stamp. Something like the drivers license where its like $20 or whatever to get.

 

[Miniquik]

I would say that if the goal of the 2nd is to allow farmers to own the same weapons as the US military, that ship has sailed. You can have my fully loaded B-1 when you shoot me outta the sky. Ha

 

[Danzig]

From enemies foreign and domestic.

While the US has had reasonably been peaceable within it's borders since the civil war. There have been instances were military style weaponry would have come in handy. 1916 Columbus, New Mexico. Thinking our nation will never know further civil war or an attack from outside forces is extremely optimistic. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is going to happen anytime soon. Isn't it better to be prepared. Mexican cartel violence has crossed over our borders. I feel better with a black rifle than just a pistol if harm is coming our way.

Gungrabbers have called on ammo bans, .50 cal. bans, assault weapon bans, high cap mag bans, even laser and knife bans. Anything to get their foot in the door. It's all about opportunities to advance their agenda. Which is ultimately...total disarmament.

 

[ROYALE-W-CHEESE]

Very good topic, RRoss. The best way to improve one's own arguments is to attack it from one's opponent's POV. That is, think like your enemy. Many here understand this in a tactical sense on the battlefield but in reading the majority of posts here, I often wonder if this strategic concept is much considered in the battlefield of proper debate.

That said, consider an extension of the argument against "full auto"... the one that suggests, if full auto should be legal than why not heavy guns, grenades and rocket launchers as well? (This, of course, is the core of Miniquik's "B-1" joke as well as Webphisher's comments three posts above.) As a question of justifying my general gun ownership, I feel it's not necessary to justify due to it being a right granted by our Constitution.

As to justification of why I, as a civilian, would "need" an AR... Honestly, I have yet to read an argument that for me reasonably substantiates pure need. For all but one instance, I can easily visualize counter-arguments: If the need is self-defense, use a shotgun. If the need is hunting, use a bolt-action. If the need is sporting competition, at least limit the round count in magazines.

Before we get in a tizzy, please re-read carefully my opening paragraph as well as my stance on overall justification. Then realize what I'm doing here. I'm siding with RRoss on this one: before we cry "Them Damn Libs" any louder than them damn libs' crying "Them Damn Conservatives", stop to really think about why we should have to the right to bear any arms -- not to be confused with the question of the right to bear arms. This is the essential crux of this thread, not to mention the absolute vortex of the anti-gun debate in America.

Oh and that one instance I mentioned? Danzig's reason pretty much sums it up: in case of major invasion (aka SHTF/ZA).

 

[ROYALE-W-CHEESE]

Do we all have the right to bear arms, yes, should we all, no.

How would we regulate the "should" part?